Immobilized Engineer and G:Servant

Yes you can use your own G-Servant to unglue yourself. For G: Servants to function at all you need to be able to declare Engineer/Doctor when that skill is only valid for the G: Servant anyway.

IE. If the Engineer isn't B2B with something that needs Engineering then Engineer isn't a valid declaration for the Engineer.

It's been discussed before, so should be Googlable.

Edit: yes, as per IJW's third post.

https://forum.corvusbelli.com/index.php?posts/89824/

 

Yes, but apparently thats all right because, as the Directors themselves like to say “We’ve already told you”.

This is a Galician way of saying “Even though we’re very kind, intelligent and creative people, and we know know a person’s understanding of something isn‘t directly related to their ability to explain it: and even though we accept that English is not our first language and that we’re not entirely bi-lingual for the purposes of describing a very complex game; its your fault you don’t understand us, not ours. And could you please stop pesterimg us about this - we’re very busy with other, new and shinier projects.”

(And I’m sorry if all this sounds tired and bitter and cynical, but I am, so that’s oftem how it comes out.)

 

The FAQ queue is huge, has been for a long time

 

To be fair to my favourite game designers, clarifying this rule in an FAQ would be a pretty low priority because, as IJW's original answer implied, its meaning may not be obvious, but it is explicable from the written rules, and if you think it through you'd likely be correct.

And it's demonstrable that people correctly do surmise CB's intentions when they take the time to read and understand the rules for themselves - even when being instructed to the contrary by more experienced players on “the way it’s played”.

But these observations don't excuse CB's lack of interest in providing a system for providing regular updates, clarifications and FAQ.s, because their purpose is not to clarify the rules that THEY find unclear, but to clarify the rules that WE find unclear!

I think that strange disconnect may be due language differences, where their Galician Spanish appears comfortable with very permissive language, whereas UK English requires plenty of use prohibitive clauses such as "may not" or "but not also" etc.

It may be reasonable to surmise that Galicians (or at least these particular Spaniards) are comfortable with their permissive language for Infinity; but then it's equally reasonable to allow that English readers aren't. Suggesting otherwise is pretty conceited.

Yes, the problem is with the way it’s being handled. I don't think think it's ever acceptable to say ‘you should understand us’. In any communication protocol, it has to be the sender's responsibility to communicate the message clearly, not the receiver's responsibility to understand the message. Because as unreasonable as that may seem, nothing else is actually workable.

 

This is exactly why I don’t play in competitive public events. I used to in other games, (like warmahordes, 40k, fantasy, xwing, etc), but the lack of a solid, sanctioned, faq leaves so much for an organizer/judge to determine. When that happens, you can win or lose matches off some really stupid, unexpected rulings.

 

In the meantime how many "do and undo" rules we have faced ?

I can remember:
"Coordinate order with regular order from other combat group"
"Shock & 2W NWI units"

 

I'm sorry but couldn't help but chuckle a bit with the 40k one. Never in my life have I played a competitive game that required such a stupendous amount of FAQ, community FAQ and several house rulings to even barely function at a core level. At least the overwhelming majority of CB FAQ's are outer edge cases, with noticable exceptions, such as 2W + NWI vs Shock and the Coordinated Order that didn't need a Regular Order from the same combat group (which, luckily, was short lived as that was gamebreakingly retarded). I fail to see how anyone has ever lost to unexpected rulings, in fact the only time I've heard of such things was due to TO's who were demonstrably wrong and as a consequence made entirely erroneous rulings, which is not the fault of the game but rather a fault of the TO's.

 

Didn't Gutierre basically say this in one of the Uprising justification articles? Or maybe it was a podcast?

 

There are somethings that the rules self-contradict on or are just unclear, so it's left to TO's to figure that shit out.

 

It's not that I find that statement implausible by any stretch of the imagination but it would certainly carry more weight if you provided small examples to prove your point, otherwise I'd be inclined to believe that you took my statement about faulty TO's personal.

 

I'm not sure about that, but I wouldn’t be at all surprised. I’m just repeating what was said to me and a group of others in person when discussing the whole ‘open information’ meme 18 months ago.

There was nothing privileged about those exchanges, and they’ve expressed the same attitude in subsequent exchanges too. They're not shy about their attitude, so I’m not shy about repeating it. Their stance baffles me, and this is the best apologetic I can offer:

 

A simple one would be climb - how do you measure it? Do you get a free movement equal to your base length at the end? The examples in the rulebook contradict the text, seemingly. (This is part of the reason why "More examples!" is a wrongheaded request from the rules team - there's no point, in fact it will only make things more confusing, if they don't take the time to make sure the people writing the examples know the rules).

A more particular one is Intent, but I've only seen people on the internet argue against it, never in person.

 

So everything from when @Wolf started posting?

 

Bloody hell Son, you really phoned that one in. Make an effort with your tribalistic bullshit, will you?

 

First 3 posts were on topic. The fourth post added no value and started the off topic conversation. Everything from that point on was off topic. The easiest way to accurately describe that while simultaneously making culpability clear is "from when @Wolf started posting": it's not my fault the shoe fits.

We have a thread about the state of the rules and the complexity of the game already: you could confine your toxicity to that thread and I wouldn't have anything to point out.